Grading...The Deming Way
Del Nelson
Professor of Management
American River College
Sacramento, California
BACKGROUND: It was in 1982 that I attended my first "Deming 4-Day" seminar. I was a manager in the Federal Civil Service (Directorate of Distribution, Sacramento Air Logistics Center, USAF), and teaching part time at American River College (a community college) in Sacramento. I had recently (1980) completed an M.S. in International Logistics Management at the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) where I had "discovered" the concept called Total Quality, through the works of Dr. Kaoru Ishikawa. Through his works I had discovered the QC Circle concept, SPC (Statistical Process Control), etc.. Further research led me to the name of Dr, W. Edwards Deming (helped, of course, by the 1980 TV appearance of the video "If Japan Can, Why Can't We?"). In 1980, as chief of the Resources Management Branch, for the 2,000 member Directorate of Distribution, I had introduced the Quality Circle/team concept to the Air Force. By 1982 we had over 100 successful, active circles at our location. Ready for "the next step," my research told me we needed a guide, and all the information pointed to Dr. Deming, and we began the process of sending all mid/top managers and union leaders to the 4 -Day Seminars.
Well, for many of us (include me, please) the 4-Day was life changing event. During a break on day 1, I introduced myself to Dr. Deming, noted both my work as a manager and an educator, and said that I was in the process of implementing the quality approach that he taught. I asked if I could, as subjects were introduced during the seminar, check with him to see if we we're "doing it right." He said, "Of course." It was in such a session, after the Red Bead Game, and the introduction of SPC concepts, that Dr. Deming asked me, as a "fellow educator" how I graded my students/determined their final grades (I already agreed with him that appraisal "systems" had to go, but I had not yet made "the connection" with grades). So, I proudly set forward my "approach," complete with tests, +/- grades (oh, wonderful, now we just don't have 5 "categories" to "rank" people with, we have we have 13 [hmmmmm, 13?), and 13 for each graded element), +/- individually graded term papers, and how I carefully graded (heaven help me) by use of "the curve."
Dr Deming asked if I got the message of the Red Bead Game (for those unfamiliar with this, it is an actual demonstration, with 9 active participants, that statistically demonstrates the pure insanity of any and all personnel ranking and rating systems [ref. The works of David Langford on this, also]), with and asked a few questions to be sure I
did. He, then, asked two questions:
1. Did I have data to show that any variation from the "C" was due to assignable causes and not a system variation, or was I "assuming?"
(Try a control chart on your grades see what it says.) (Of course I didn't have the data! I challenge anyone out there to produce such.), and
2. If I had a serious illness would I want to go to a doctor that had an "average" © rate of patient recoveries, or would I want a "better one?" If the latter, why would any student want to come to my class?"
24 hours after returning from the 4-day (that was in '84) I published my new policy (set forward at the end, below) and haven't looked back since.
System Theory: One of the critical elements from the SoPK that WED first pointed out to us was the danger of considering anything without considering both the internal and the external system relationships, and interrelationships, involved. Simply put, that means that we cannot look at/change just the grades/grading process without taking a system perspective ( = tampering). When we do that, the first element that we notice is the isolationist perspective of the current educational system, i.e., it largely derives from and supports the theory of rugged individualism, treating every person as separate, totally independent entity, individually and exclusively responsible and accountable for his/her individual actions. As such, the only way to effectively address the disease of grading is to re-examine the total educational system that is supported by the current grading scheme. We need to begin, IAW the SoPK, with the aim/purpose of the system. All the foundation documents, legislation, and current media coverage underlines the "individual excellence" focus (as opposed to system excellence) of the current educational system. From scholastics through athletics the system is structured on a win-lose basis, reflective of the economic basis of American, win/lose society/business /economic operations since the late 1800s. From this perspective we can see that grades/grading are merely the output/intermediate product of a system designed to produce the "warriors, officers and soldiers" of a "competitive" culture. As such, to attempt to change "just the grades/grading process/ system" would be akin to expecting to obtain "healthy automobile exhaust emissions" while keeping the rest of the current fuel-engine components. It simply can't be done. We are talking about two systems (the current educational system vs, a Deming based one) that are incompatible from the system aim/purpose, to the system relationships designed/implemented to support and attain that aim/purpose, to their end product (rated and ranked students, from "drop-outs," to scholarship "winners," to job offers based on "class standings" and/or "campus/institutional prestige/ rankings." As to that fundamental incompatibility of system aim, all we need do is check the many times WED referenced collaborative methods and intent, "everybody wins," As WED says (The New Economics, MIT/CAES, 1993, p. 64), "a system in which...groups work together to achieve growth and development of children, and preparation for them to contribute to the prosperity of society...a system... in which pupils from toddlers on up through the university take joy in learning, free from of fear of grades and gold stars, and in which teachers take joy in their work, free from fear in ranking."
In a brief "aside" let me share with you an experience from one of my classes.
The class was our introductory one (Management 1) where we introduced Dr. Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK, on Knowledge os systems, Appreciation and understanding of Variation and Statistics, Knowledge of Psychology, and the Theory of Knowledge [prediction]), his 14 points for management, etc. (Ref. Deming's "The New Economics," and "Out of the Crisis" (referred to below as OOC) MIT-CAES, 1986 for the background and expansion of these areas. In the intro class we use Mary Walton's "The Deming Management Method", Putnam 198X). We were about half way through the session with the student team presenting/ leading the dialogue on Point 8, "Drive Out Fear" (that would be about week 6 or 7 of the semester) (ref. "student team:" I totally scrapped the pedagogical, deity at the podium style of teaching in the 80's (along with grades)(with Dr. Deming's input); classes are divided into teams (How? A totally separate, but critical, issue that we might deal with at another time.) And the teams assume/accept responsibility for leading the learning experience for the texts/related references, etc., I get to "play" coach.). Suddenly, one of the students (not on the presenting team) stood up in the middle of a question being asked by the presenting team of the class. The student was a young man (mid 20s, an airman from the nearby McClellan AFB). He slapped himself on the cheek, and said (loudly), "Oh, My God!" He then turned so as to "share" with all his class members, "I finally figured it out. I'm not here to get a grade, I'm here to learn."
He demonstrated the truth of Dr. Deming's words (The New Economics,(we'll use the abbreviation: TNE for this), p. 148), "Joy in learning comes not so much from what is learned, but from learning."
Compare that with the "aim/purpose" of your schools. Whether at the elementary level (ref. TNE), p. 74), or the competitive rivalry of advanced "educational" rivalry (from "A/B/C/D/F" in the classroom, to the sports fields) the result is the same: unhappy teachers, parents and students going for grades, recognition, and "gold stars" (high annual appraisals for teachers) on a win, lose basis. Where can we find the educational institution dedicated to inducing "joy in learning," collaboration on a win/win basis to build a "better world" (improving health, declining poverty, decrease in bias, etc.), learning the System of Profound Knowledge, and dedicated to leading the student(s) to the path of never-ending-improvement in every facet of their lives. Our educational problems are only made worse by grades, grades on the curve, honor roles, competitive athletics, or ranking/testing of schools, none of which will support (in fact, they will directly prevent) attainment of any such system related/driven goals.
Given that, then we must begin with the determination of the system aim/purpose, and use that aim/purpose as a basis for the design and acceptance ALL subsystem
components and their interrelationships. Unless we begin without that basis all we can do is tamper and make things even worse.
Which explains all the "great, saving actions" being implemented by/in our schools, directed by governments, administrators, etc.; and they all fail, over and over, and over, and.... Oh, some sound great, some have honest intent, but, without the system aim/purpose/elements, noted above, they will continue to produce steadily declining education "system" results.
So, the FIRST step MUST be redesign of the entire system, basing all action and design decisions on continually supporting and advancing "the system."
Does that mean we must wait for the system to change before we do anything? On the contrary, if we are to maintain integrity, whenever we know/find that some situation/sub-system that is in existence is working at cross purposes against the larger system of which it is a part, we have an obligation to initiate change.
Variation and Statistics: It one thing to know that there is variation, and quite another to understand/know what caused that variation. It is here where many parts of our society crash: making changes, giving credit, and assigning blame without any understanding. As Deming (TNE p102, 178-9) noted, "There are two mistakes frequently made in attempting to improve results, both costly (OTC, p. 178):
Mistake #1 To react to an outcome as if it came from a special cause (from
outside the system, e.g., one individual, when actually it came from a common cause of variation (system caused).
Mistake #2 To treat any outcome as if they came from common causes of variation, when actually it came from a special cause.
and, he continued (TNE p. 178): "Either mistake causes loss... we can avoid either mistake but not both".,..and that, if we choose to always say the problems are due to Mistake #1, we do minimize the loss from Mistake #1 (not identifying any assignable causes). The problem is that this action MAXIMIZES loses due to Mistake #2 (and vice versa), To always identify all errors as being caused by the system causes multiplication of the loss from Mistake #2 (always to miss assignable causes). Likewise, to always identify all errors as bring caused by "assignable" causes (the major path of our society, from education, to business, to sports, to "game" shows, to government) maximizes the loss due to Mistake #1 1 (always to miss common/system causes).
Think about all the actions/decisions made, not just about grades in education, but in any area of our society (reflected in the societal mirror of education, i.e., if you want to determine the true (not "hyped") values of a society examine the values being inculcated
in the children in the education system) that "stray" from this basic, foundational component of the SoPK.
In my classes, when we are teaching the basics of this concept, I use the phrase, "In God we trust, all others bring data!" then proceed to share how we determine what data is needed and it's relationship to the system aim/purpose, what's available, how to collect it, how we classify data (quantitative vs. qualitative, continuous vs. discrete, etc.), to how (using Dr. Russ Ackoff's [of the Wharton School of Business] model:
Data ->yields->
Information->yields->
Knowledge->yields->
Understanding->
yields->Wisdom)
we can derive information and knowledge about what is happening in a system,
what we mean by variance, what the data says in "the voice of the process" (e.g., control charts for quantitative data).
The most critical step in this process, as noted in the section on Systems Theory, above, is the first one, relating to the purpose/aim of the system. If that is not known, or ambiguous, there is no possible way to know either what data is needed or, or how to use whatever data is "present"/available. So, getting back to education and grades, "Why does the educational system, our schools, exist?"
Until we can answer that question we have the same chance of selecting the correct data as we do in winning the Irish Sweepstakes, 100% random chance.
And we "just didn't/don't get it!" Reflective of our win/lose society we said the purpose of our "education system" was/is to produce "winners." And....then we built/assembled the parts/structured the system relationships, and built an education "system" designed to support competition, rivalry, "winning is the only thing," "rugged individualism," etc., with a basis in the now thoroughly discredited theory of "survival of the fittest" (as contemporary theory now shows us it is survival of the "fittingest," those who fit best with others, collaborate, join together with, practice mutual support based, not independence, but on interdependence, that are the one's that survive, that journey to the future while the rest make good fossils).
Well, that does bring us back to the first element of the SoPK. What variances can we measure that are related to Deming based purpose of education ("It should be a system of education in which pupils from toddlers on up through the university take joy in learning, free from fear of grades and gold stars, and in which teachers take joy in their work, free from fear of ranking." TNE, p. 64) vs. the those that demonstrate "competition,
rivalry, "winning is the only thing," "rugged individualism," etc., with a basis in the now thoroughly discredited theory of "survival of the fittest"," as noted above.
Well, simply put, there aren't any "quantitative" measures that do that, the figures/data that are available were designed to support that "competition, rivalry, "winning is the only thing," "rugged individualism," etc., with a basis in the now thoroughly discredited theory of "survival of the fittest"."
All of which, of course, is directly aligned with Deming's statement that, "the most important things cannot be measured." Oh, given time, and with the Deming based system aim of "joy" we will be able (probably?) to develop "substitute" measures (quantitative indicators that have some degree of probability of correlation with qualitative indicators (the important "stuff") even as we measure the softness of a seat cushion and draw the correlation with comfort. I look forward to such a development process. But, pending that development, we will find our only reliable indicators in the qualitative realm of psychology, not statistics.
Psychology I place psychology here, as the 3rd element of PK, as I did in my guest presentations at the 4-Day seminars, for the simple reason it is 4th in the sequence that Dr. Deming added it to the SoPK (influenced by Dr. Gail Dimitrof, a wonderful mentor in psychology (and, maybe, even me) ). But, in the sequence that leads us to prediction, it takes its rightful place alongside the quantitative element of statistical variation (it might prove to be a fascinating dialogue, advancing the understanding of the SoPK, to explore whether the element called "Psychology" might be better labeled: "Psychological/Qualitative Variation," while the 2nd element might become "Statistical/Quantitative Variation," or...).
As such, we can see/understand that the outputs/effects of any system exhibit variation that can be qualitatively known OR quantitatively measured. It is the region of the qualitative element of "joy" that we must look to if we are to understand the critical issue of eliminating grades (and all other competitively structured win/lose based processes).
Note that we are not saying that there are not quantitative "factors" that we can be applied to psychology, to help us understand the complexity of this element (and enhance our appreciation of "the system," of which we are a part). As we note these elements/factors I invite you to consider our education system (or our/your management system).
The past several decades have seen a virtual explosion in the discovery and development of an understanding and appreciation of the area of psychological/ qualitative relationships, much as the preceding decades saw a similar explosion in our understanding and appreciation of the measurable/quantitative relationships that led to SPC, quantum theory, etc.. The information we have seems to indicate that we are looking at an element AT LEAST as complex as the measurable/quantitative side.
The reasons are simple enough to understand when we look at some of "quantitative" data that can be applied here. Let's begin with a simple factor like "learning modes." Which "mode" (visual verbal, visual symbolic, auditory, tactile kinesthetic), or mix of modes and, if mixed, in what sequence, characterizes the student? Did past teachers know that? How did they (and classmates) match? What was done to provide "equal access" when the students mode did NOT match the teacher?
Let's move from there to "learning modalities," i.e., the manner in which the preferred mode is used. Which "modality" (doing, active experimentation, observation, reflective thinking), or mix of modalities and, if mixed, in what sequence, characterizes the student? Teachers? Classmates? Family/parents? Just this simple consideration of two "psychological elements" yields a minimum total of 256 interrelationships, and we not begun to include the truly complex considerations.
We can proceed to "self-image" (sometimes called "self-esteem"), and it's range from +1>0>-1 (a continuous range vs, discrete counts/indicators), and from there to personality type (whether we accept Freudian, Jungian [including Meyers-Briggs]), the new perspectives of Human Dynamics, and on, and on, and on, in a never-ending growth/change of the knowledge/understanding of psychology; never ending in that humans can learn and understand certain relationships within the psyche, but cannot understand the whole, the entirety of human psychology (ref. TNE p.104, "Again, a system cannot understand itself.") mounting up to a psychological system with thousands of inter-relationships. Not all, of course are equal, but some number of them have major impacts on the individual person's acquisition and understanding of "knowledge," and others, though individually minor in effect, when taken in sum, also have major impacts on "the learning system" that we are busy "grading," "rating," "ranking," "rewarding," and "punishing."
From the above, and examining how much of that is factored into our education "system," we can see that the element of psychology, as a part of the SoPK has been pretty much ignored in our "education efforts." (Which is natural when, from the preceding section on "Systems," we understand this "system" has, at best, an ambiguous, or, at worst, no aim/purpose.
Theory of Knowledge It is here, in the Theory of Knowledge, that we might say, "The rubber meets the road!" Data from the other elements of the SoPK can be gathered and combined into "proposed" information that, when validated, can lead to knowledge. (Ref. TNE, p. 109, for the distinction between information and knowledge.) And how is this accomplished? By examining the data and -"information," from the "system" we are examining, and its component inter-relationships, and developing a theory that predicts outcomes of actions involving the system and/or its component relationships. It is from comparing the prediction with the actual results that we validate information and combine it to form "knowledge."
Now, when the prediction is matched by the actual data/information there are two possible results:
1. that the prediction matches the results, and
2. that the prediction does not match the results.
In the case of number 1, we can tentatively accept the theory, and develop probable knowledge. Why the qualifications? "No number of examples establishes a theory..." (TNE, p. 107). And we have all seen, witnessed, even been part of a "shift/change" in knowledge when an existing proven theory had to be, literally, "dumped" because the prediction based on that earlier theory was wrong.
In the case of number 2, "...a single, unexplained failure of a theory requires modification or even abandonment of the theory" (TNE, p. 107). And we have no instances of "A single...failure" we have more instances of failure than success!
Based on data readily available (new data in the media almost every day) the education "system," as a system is broken, it doesn't meet the predictions, either for the system, or for the sub-components, of "improvement" in any fashion. I invite you to pick any school/group of schools, find out what predictions they made on any changes implemented in the last 20, 30, 50, 80, or 100 years. Compare those predictions:
1, with actual data after the intervention, over the years, and with
2. actual data from schools that didn't make the change.
Put in other terms (mine, bias and all) I believe we have the data to show that the education system, based on a hierarchical, win/lose, competitive, chaotic society, based, to a large degree on the belief that "people are not good/cannot be trusted," that produces people (graduates, drop outs, all) who are aligned to be hierarchical, win/lose, competitive, and maintain a chaotic society. Further, that there is NO OTHER OUTPUT POSSIBLE from THE SYSTEM. The complete system (not just grades) has got to be totally replaced/ Think about, everything from lesson plans, to texts, to schedules, to rules governing who gets to go on (or not), to class sequence, to "subject grouping," is based on competition and grades. Heck, we even want, now, to rate both teachers and the schools on the grades of the student's and their "standardized" test scores. (Has anyone ever figured out that this guarantees the test is 100% biased because "standardized" only means "according to the standards" of the test designers/"approvers" (Ref. TNE, p. 149) "Standardized" to "their culture, their language, their socially accepted norms of conduct, their "historical" beliefs, their generational science knowledge, their learning styles and modes," etc., etc., etc.; in essence guaranteeing that Mistake #1: [always to miss common/system causes] will be made.) And then? Then we want to impose financial penalties on schools, school districts, "doing our best" to instill fear, motivate cheating, and promoting further segregation of the poor.
So, we do what Dr. W. Edwards Deming recommended. We toss out the current system, designing a new one with the goals of "joy in learning, free from fear of grades and gold stars, and in which teachers take joy in their work, free from fear in ranking. It must be a system that recognizes differences between pupils and differences between teachers" (TNE, p. 64) "No notable improvements will come until our schools:
(TNE, p.148)
Actions Taken So now, Del Nelson, what have YOU done about this.
What have I done? I followed the SoPK and:
a. designed a new system (for, originally, my classes; now there are
several instructors doing it) (this is, perhaps, able to be seen by some as "tampering," but we/I see it more as the appearance of a new, growing, healthy cell structure in an otherwise cancerous organ).
b. taught class members SPC and to self/team monitor,
c. based it on state-of-the-art psychology "that recognizes difference between pupils and differences between teachers."
d. predicted, and have achieved success with the new "system" over the past 11 years of "teaching" at American River College. (Need testimonials? Via e-mail? Let me know)
What is the premise/are the aims/purpose of this new system? Simple:
Joy in Learning (make it fun!)
NO GRADES
No Fear
No competition
Recognize the social nature of the species, dump the pedagogical
(divinity at the podium, lecturing) model and go to the androgynous, team based model to better prepare students to build a collaborative, team based society dedicated to never-ending-improvement in everyone's life.
How do we do that? Well, we begin with a basic handout to all the classes (new or continuing) That handout follows, beginning on the next page. We use opening class exercises/instruments that let each student grasp/understand their personality type, learning style, learning modality, join in teams (they will like), and the "art of dialogue" (Vs. "discussion" ), work on the development of a personal vision, and more (curricula on request, as offered once before). Please note that we have also effectively placed an operational definition for each of the tasks/headings through use of the classic "5 W's and an H," the Who, What, Why, Where, When, and How, for each element, showing students a working example of what they will learn/apply themselves over the semester(s).
Applicable? Anywhere, anytime. It's up to the individual to do it. I've briefed it to my dean, my union (like Dr. Deming, I, too, belong to a union...after all, as he said, "They are part of the system."), and my faculty department, and the Academic Senate. We now, as noted above, have added faculty doing the same, as it is applicable to any education effort (training is a different subject).
To all I extend a heartfelt invitation NOT to TRY it (try = lack of commitment), but TO DO IT (Deming's Pt. 14, "Make the change, do it!" which doesn't say "try" either). You'll love it (and so will all the students and the organizations with which they will work/interact for the rest of their lives).
AMERICAN RIVER COLLEGE
TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT
ATTENDANCE: You are a co-creator of our learning environment. Plan to attend every class. Each class meeting is an opportunity for personal growth and learning. If you must miss a class, you are responsible for coordinating with your team and your instructors to determine the method for making up the time missed and demonstrating an understanding of the material covered in class. While we recognize you as responsible adults whose personal or professional priorities may require you to be elsewhere, we also expect you to be a responsible class and team member. Failure to coordinate absences and makeup assignments may result in your being dropped from the class by the instructor or by your team. We recommend you set attendance terms in your team contract.
TIME REQUIREMENTS: ARC TQM courses require a significant investment of time in addition to the normally scheduled class time. As a guideline, plan to devote approximately 2 hours of additional time per unit per week to team meetings and individual study outside of class.
TEAM WORK: ARC TQM courses emphasize teamwork. You may either select or be assigned to a team. Teams may be made up of persons from the same organization or profession, or team members may be selected through a class exercise. During the course of the semester, class members will have the opportunity to demonstrate understanding both as individuals and, increasingly, as team members, helping each other.
TEXTBOOKS: Each TQM course has its own set of textbooks. Your instructor(s) will discuss the specific textbook requirements for your class in the first class session. Each of you is expected to have your own texts.
READING AND WRITING COMPETENCY: ARC TQM courses require competence in reading and writing. Reading and writing competency requirements are specified in the Graduation Requirements section of the current American River College Catalog.
GRADES: You can earn one of three grades in each TQM class: "A," "I," or "F."
"A" GRADE: You can earn an "A" by:
"I" (INCOMPLETE): You will be assigned an "I" if:
This will be converted to an "A" when specified work (determined by you, your team, and your instructor) is completed.
"F" GRADE: You will be assigned an "F" for:
Individuals and teams are responsible for the following:
1. NON-ATTRIBUTION PLEDGE:
Who: Each individual
What: Sign, return, and honor the attached non-attribution pledge (see page 5)
When: Due to the instructor during the second class meeting.
Where: In class
Why: To create an environment where class members can share real life experiences without fear that someone in the class will use the information to cause harm to
the presenter or their organization.
How: 1 Sign the pledge.
2.Give the pledge to the instructor.
3.Honor the pledge.
2. TEAM CONTRACT: (2) Date Due;
Who: Each team
What: Develop a team contract.
Why: To explicitly identify relationships of individuals and their teams to (a) team members, (b) other teams, (c) the class at large, and (d) the instructors.
Where: As determined by the team
When: Due to the instructor not later than 3 weeks after forming teams
How: By consulting with the instructors and developing a consensus of what the contract should contain.
3. TEAM MEETINGS:
Who: Each team
What: Conduct team meetings.
Why: To experience team development and accomplish team assignments
Where: As determined by the team
When: Outside class as determined by the team and during class when the class schedule permits
How: As determined by the team
4. ARTICLE PRESENTATIONS:
Who: Individuals and teams
What: Present articles from team resource book.
Why: To exchange current information relevant to the class
Where: In class
When: During class as determined by the instructors and the class
How: 1. Meet as a team and review articles selected by individuals.
2. Select one article to present to the class.
3. Develop a summary of why you selected the article.
4. Briefly present the article to the class.
5. Relate the article to the elements of Profound Knowledge.
5. TEAM CHAPTER PRESENTATIONS:
Who: Each team
What: Present assigned chapters from the course texts.
Why: To develop teamwork, to demonstrate an understanding of the material, and to enrich the class with relevant personal experiences.
Where: In class
When: During assigned class periods throughout the semester
How: By reading the material, consulting with the instructor(s), and developing a team presentation designed to convey the key points of the material. (Never by reading the texts to the class.) Relate the material to the elements of Profound Knowledge.
6. TEAM RESOURCE BOOK: (6) Date Due:
Who: Each team
What: Create a 3-ring binder "resource book" of original articles, ads, cartoons, Internet messages, etc. that relate to profound knowledge and/or Deming's 14 points.
Why: 1. To create an awareness of quality;
2. To foster team-building activities,
3. To encourage team members to develop their own reference sources, and
4. To provide a resource to show others how quality concepts can be applied.
Where: In class and during team meetings
When: Due to the instructor 5 (five) weeks before the last class meeting
How: 1. Collect original items from any printed source. Do not include photocopies unless you have consulted the instructor(s). Include the source and date of the item.
2. Emphasize the main points of each item by underlining or highlighting.
3. Sort the items into main sections that relate to profound knowledge and/or Deming's 14 points.
4. Prepare a one or two page typed, double-spaced summary of the articles in each main section.
5. Prepare a table of contents for the resource book.
6. Certify with each team member's signature that each team member participated fully' in the creation of the resource book.
7. "CHANGE IN PERSONAL CONCEPT OF LEADERSHIP" PAPER (7) Date Due
Who: Each individual (except those enrolled in Management 2G)
What: Write a three to five page, typed, double-spaced paper entitled "How This Class Changed My Personal Concept of Leadership."
Why: To encourage personal reflection and help the instructors improve the course.
Where: As determined by the individual
When: Due to the instructor two weeks before the last scheduled class meeting
How: Write a paper that reflects changes in your personal point of view about what makes a good leader. Describe changes that took place in your practice of
leadership during the semester. Use the personal pronoun "I," and do not use footnotes. (Papers should not be abstract or theoretical.)
8A. INDIVIDUAL TEAM EXPERIENCE PAPER: (8A) Date Due:
Who: Each individual
What: Write a two to three page, typed, double-spaced paper, summarizing your experience as a team member during the semester.
Why: To develop and share team insights, provide a basis for a team paper on the same subject, and assess areas for future personal growth.
Where: In class and during team meetings
When: Due to the instructor on the date of the your team's final team presentation
How: 1. Summarize, at a minimum, the following:
(a) Team variances from your initial expectations
(b) What you could have been done to make the team function better
© What you can do to improve future team performance
2. Circulate the paper to all team members in time to prepare the joint team experience paper.
. 3. Attach the individual team experience papers to the joint team experience paper.
8B JOINT TEAM EXPERIENCE PAPER: (8B) Date Due:
Who: Each team
What: Write a two to three page, typed, double-spaced paper, signed by each member of the team, summarizing the team experience during the semester.
Why: To develop and share team insights and jointly form a baseline for improvement in the next team experience.
Where: In class and during team meetings
When: Due to the instructor on the date of the final team presentation
How: 1. Use the individual team experience papers as a basis for the joint team experience paper.
2. Develop a team narrative of shared observations, conclusions, and planned improvements to team performance.
3. Have each team member sign the team paper.
:
8C. TEAM PROJECT: (8C) Date Due:
Who: Each team
What: Plan, do, and present a team project to the instructor(s) and the class.
Why: To gain experience in the application of information and skills learned in the class to an actual job situation of one or more of the team members (a "real life" learning experience)
Where: Plan in team meeting and present in the assigned classroom.
When: Present during the last two scheduled weeks of the semester as assigned.
How: 1. Consult with the instructor(s) and select a semester project.
2. Present an interim oral progress report as determined by the instructor(s).
3. Deliver a written project paper to the instructor and make an in-class presentation, using a variety of presentation techniques, to the class as a whole.
4. If unable to do a "real life" project, (a) obtain permission from the instructor(s) to do an alternate research project on another company's efforts to implement T.M. principles taught this semester, or (b) obtain permission from the instructor(s) to prepare and present a library/current literature research project.
5. Include a guest speaker, if desired, as part of the interim or final presentation. Relate the speaker's remarks to the elements of Profound Knowledge.
9. TEAM PARTICIPATION CERTIFICATION: (9) Date Due:
Who: Each team
What: Certify in writing that all team work is complete and each team member has participated fully.
Why: To demonstrate integrity and mutual commitment
Where: At the last team meeting
When: Due at the last class meeting
How: Each member of a team signs a joint statement certifying that
1. All team assignments are complete,
2. Each member of the team participated fully in team activities, and
3. Each member of the team is satisfied that every other team member contributed fully to the team's work.
SAMPLE NON-ATTRIBUTION PLEDGE:
Non-attribution Pledge
I, the undersigned, pledge on my honor to neither reveal the source of information nor use information provided in this class by my fellow students or instructors in any manner that would cause harm to that person or to that person's company or organization. Should I violate this pledge, I acknowledge that I will receive an "F" in this class.
Signature: Your Signature Date: ____/____/____
Typed/Printed Name Phone(s):
Your name H: W:
Keep the above sample
Fill out and turn in the form on the following page by the end of the 2nd class.
Non-attribution Pledge
I, the undersigned, pledge on my honor to neither reveal the source of information nor use information provided in this class by my fellow students or instructors in any manner that would cause harm to that person or to that person's company or organization. Should I violate this pledge, I acknowledge that I will receive an "F" in this class.
Signature: Date: ____/____/____
Typed/Printed Name Phone(s):
H: W: